The value upon which they're taxed is the price for which they sold it. The estimated/expected price is only relevant if they keep the ball until the end of the year, and only the estimated price at the end of the year counts, not the initial estimate at the time it was caught. Since the ball wasn't caught at the end of the year, you're claim is false. It's also a completely different situation. You aren't taxed on the current selling price of the stock every year, you're taxed in the year in which you sell it, and you're taxed upon the difference between the price you paid, and the price you sold for.
Estimated prices, intermediate prices, and estimated future earnings of the stock have absolutely nothing to do with your taxable amount. THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PURCHASE PRICE AND YOUR SALES PRICE, and that the time between purchase and sale was greater than 18 months (less than 18 months and it's considered regular income rather than a capital gain).
But opening price is meaningless. Adjusting the closing price by the amount of the dividend has no direct effect on the price of a transaction the next day, the actual transaction price may be higher or lower than the opening price.
You have the key word there, but you don't seem to understand it. "Expected future profit/loss" IS NOT REAL. It's not an actual profit or loss, it's a prediction, pure speculation about what you think is likely to happen. Stock price is based upon these EXPECTED values, that aren't real, and everyone has different estimates. That's why one person is willing to sell at X price while another person buys. They're making different guesses about the future earnings. But remember, those are only predictions, they're not real income.
If you think stock prices are based upon income, you're fooling yourself.
And as I just told the other commenter, if you don't understand that, it your problem, I'm done trying to explain it to you.
No, dividends to not lower the stock price by the exact amount of the dividend, because the stock price isn't based only upon the capital value of the corporation, it's based upon the perceived value. Expected earnings are NOT REAL EARNINGS, and the corporation doesn't pay income tax on "expected earnings", they pay tax on actual earnings. Expected future earnings is 100% speculation. It's not about the income, it's about the expectation of success, including future income.
Income and expected income are not the same thing, and you have those two conflated. Stock price is based upon a fictitious number called anticipated future earnings. You don't have a crystal ball, you don't know what the future earnings are. Some people think it will be higher than others, and that's why some people buy while others sell. It's all a prediction, none of it is actual income. The only corporate earnings are current earnings, and the only corporate assets are current assets.
If you don't understand that by now, it's your problem, I'm done trying to explain it to you.
How hard is it for you to understand that stock price being based upon perceived value is ABSOLUTELY NOT A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to corporate profits. Profits do affect perception, but it's not a direct relationship. The very definition of a direct relationship would indicate that when profits go up, stock price goes up and vice-verse. Since that clearly isn't always the case (look at many examples of profits coming in even slightly below expectations but dramatically lowering the stock price, even when the company is profitable), there is no direct relationship.
Stock price is based entirely upon perceived value of the company. Corporate income is one of the factors that affects perceived value, but it's not the only factor, and it's not always the biggest factor. Corporate assets are another factor. Market share is one factor. Predicted future income is a factor. If you EVER want to invest in the stock market, you better learn that lesson quickly or you'll lose a lot.
All of which is a big detour from your original assertion that you're being double taxed on capital gains. Gains from stock values do not come from corporate income, therefore, there is no corporate income tax being paid on those gains. You gain is coming from another investor buying your stock for more than you paid for it, not a single dollar of it comes from the corporate income. The only thing being double taxed is dividends paid by the corporation, in which case there may have been corporate income tax paid before your dividend. That's why most companies don't regularly pay dividends.
The key word is DIRECT relationship. There is no direct relationship between corporate income and stock price. Stock prices can go up or down when profits go up and vice-verse. This is contradicts the very definition of a direct relationship. Stock prices can be low when a company is making money or high when the company is losing money. Stock price is affected by the perceived value of the company, not upon corporate earnings. There ABSOLUTELY IS NOT a direct relationship, only an indirect relationship by virtue of corporate profit affecting perceived value.
And if you read the entire thread, this all grew out of the original commenter's assertion that capital gains are double taxed, corporate income tax + capital gains tax. Other than dividends, capital gains do not come from corporate income, they come from other investors buying the stock for more than you paid for it. It's a completely separate pool of money, taxed separately, and it's affected by perception of corporate value, not actual corporate performance.
And you've just proved the point that the stock price is not directly related to corporate income (and therefore corporate income tax). Share price is based upon speculation and belief, not actual income. The capital gains are not corporate income, they're another investor's money. Completely separate pool of money, and the person who loses money in the transaction gets to offset his own capital gains and if there is more loss than gain, can even offset a portion of personal income tax.
There is no double taxation except on dividends, and that is what I stated in the first place.
No, corporate profits ABSOLUTELY DO NOT directly affect stock price. If they did, corporations who were losing money would have worthless stock and those making money would always have a good stock price. Clearly that is not the case.
What affects stock price is perceived value of the company, and nothing else. Corporate profits impact that perceived value, but it's an indirect relationship, not a direct one. Stock prices are based not just upon how the company is doing now, but how people expect them to do in the future. It's all about speculation, not about how much money the company is or isn't making now.
If you're talking about buying stock in a corporation, the corporate income (or income tax) has nothing to do with it. Your gains (or losses) are on the change in price of the stock, which is about what other investors perceive it to be worth. It has no direct relationship to the corporate income (or loss) and does not come from corporate income. Dividends paid to the stockholders may fall into being double taxed, but most corporations don't may much in dividends.
You said "If you want to compare apples to apples, look at capital gains PLUS corporate income tax. It amounts to over 50%, except for companies that are in bed with the white house (GE)."
You are not double taxed on capital gains. Yes, you (may have) paid income tax on the money you earned to make the investment. However, you don't pay tax on that amount a second time, it's capital, not a gain. You only pay capital gains tax on the long-term "gain" you earned from that investment, which is to say, you deduct out your initial investment from the sale price, leaving only the "gain" that you pay "capital gains" tax on. Neither the corporate income tax, nor the capital gains tax is over 50%.
That's not the way it works. You don't pay income tax on (long term) capital gains, you pay the capital gains tax. You pay income tax on ordinary income, including short term capital gains.
Re:And Intel isn't happy about it.
on
Arduino Goes ARM
·
· Score: 1
You have no clue about what makes a low power design. If it were that simple, ATOM would be 2x as fast and 1/10 the power. Maintaining performance at low power requires completely different designs than high power high performance. Why do you think Intel abandoned the P4? The Core architecture is derived from the P-M, which is derived from the P3. They took the bus interface and a few other things from the P4, but the P4 execution architecture was thrown away in favor of the much more power efficient P3 derived design.
Actually, while those extra gates do take up die space, they're probably fully power gated, drawing no power and producing no heat when in "long mode". How much die space is probably small, remember a 486 only had around 1M transistors, including it's cache. Even if there are 10M transistors dedicated to maintaining compatibility in a modern CPU, that's ~1% of a modern CPU.
x64 mode already breaks backwards compatibility with quite a bit of x86 code, particularly x86 code that isn't 32-bit code. Anything written before the 386 was introduced wont run under 64-bit mode, almost nothing written before Windows 95 came out will run, and a whole bunch of stuff written before Windows XP came out won't run. There's some newer stuff that won't run, but by the time XP started shipping most software was moving to a 32-bit model, and so will likely run (some may require some minor tweaks and/or a recompile). So, most software written in the last 8-10 years should be ok, but most software written before '95 won't, and between '95 and 2003 it's hit and miss. They could probably save more power and/or get better performance by removing some more instructions and breaking compatibility even more, but it's probably not worth it to most users to have to replace so much software. Deprecating instructions today and removing them 6-10 years from now might be viable, but only if the customers see the benefits (as they are seeing with the move to 64-bit), and I don't see that happening unless ARM starts taking a lot of the server market from Intel.
Re:And Intel isn't happy about it.
on
Arduino Goes ARM
·
· Score: 1
It's true that this isn't a market that Intel has shown any interest in. However, this points to one of the fundamental differences between Intel and ARM. ARM already has years of mastering low power designs. For them to stay competitive means they just need to keep figuring out how to make their designs "fast enough", and work with their licensees to make them scale down to smaller process nodes. That's mostly a technical challenge, and it's one that the ARM licensees do a lot of the work on (CPU frequency and process technology)
Intel on the other hand has to figure out how to make their CPUs much lower power, and do it without compromising the performance or features that they've gotten everyone used to, and do it at a price that's competitive. That means managing the technical challenges and managing customer expectations/perceptions (look at ATOM for an example).
I leave it to the reader to figure out which has the bigger challenges.
Guess again. When you get 1000 or more people sharing that connection, throughput will suck. This is an improvement, but by no means does this replace DSL, fiber, or cable modems, there simply isn't enough radio spectrum to do that.
Great idea. Make it like a real RISC CPU, without all the x86 backwards compatibility addons. What a concept. Of course, then Intel couldn't claim "it'll run all you legacy software", and they might even have to admit it's a RISC design. And where would that leave them?
Re:Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
on
Intel's RISC-y Business
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You do know that x64 has a simplified instruction set, simplified addressing modes, larger registers, a larger logical register file, and a much larger physical register file with register renaming, right?
It still supports the full x86 instruction set when running in "legacy mode", but in "long mode", it only supports a subset of instructions, and supports only 16, 32, and 64 bit registers and operands (no 8 bit support), and standardizes the instruction lengths to provide better memory alignment, and simplified instruction processing. And in either mode, all the instructions are converted to one or more macro/micro-ops before running on the "real" RISC core.
You knew all that, right? Of course you did.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
on
Intel's RISC-y Business
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Remember all those slow, complex, cumbersome instructions from the 80x86, they're still around, just moved to microcode while all the simple stuff is implemented using the same techniques pioneered by RISC designers. But since this is a server, you're probably running x64 code, which was designed to be much more RISC like in the first place.
So, I guess the real message is "Replace your non-Intel based RISC systems with Intel based RISC systems. But wait, don't answer yet! As an added bonus, Intel chips have extra hardware added so they can run all your old x86/CISC code too, that way we can pretend they're not RISC systems based on the AMD designed x64 instruction set."
And Intel isn't happy about it.
on
Arduino Goes ARM
·
· Score: 1
Intel is making plenty of money, but they definitely see ARM as long term threat, which is part of the reason they've been focused on power consumption and performance per watt the last 5 years.
Be sure to include some encrypted files with obscure names. The encrypted data can either be disinformation, or publicly available info, or random garbage, but the encryption and intriguing names will waste some of their time.
Slashdot Mirror
... I would only work about 1 hour a day too.
Yes, and I've been quite successful at it. You might want to consider that before respond again.
The value upon which they're taxed is the price for which they sold it. The estimated/expected price is only relevant if they keep the ball until the end of the year, and only the estimated price at the end of the year counts, not the initial estimate at the time it was caught. Since the ball wasn't caught at the end of the year, you're claim is false. It's also a completely different situation. You aren't taxed on the current selling price of the stock every year, you're taxed in the year in which you sell it, and you're taxed upon the difference between the price you paid, and the price you sold for.
Estimated prices, intermediate prices, and estimated future earnings of the stock have absolutely nothing to do with your taxable amount. THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PURCHASE PRICE AND YOUR SALES PRICE, and that the time between purchase and sale was greater than 18 months (less than 18 months and it's considered regular income rather than a capital gain).
But opening price is meaningless. Adjusting the closing price by the amount of the dividend has no direct effect on the price of a transaction the next day, the actual transaction price may be higher or lower than the opening price.
You have the key word there, but you don't seem to understand it. "Expected future profit/loss" IS NOT REAL. It's not an actual profit or loss, it's a prediction, pure speculation about what you think is likely to happen. Stock price is based upon these EXPECTED values, that aren't real, and everyone has different estimates. That's why one person is willing to sell at X price while another person buys. They're making different guesses about the future earnings. But remember, those are only predictions, they're not real income.
If you think stock prices are based upon income, you're fooling yourself.
And as I just told the other commenter, if you don't understand that, it your problem, I'm done trying to explain it to you.
No, dividends to not lower the stock price by the exact amount of the dividend, because the stock price isn't based only upon the capital value of the corporation, it's based upon the perceived value. Expected earnings are NOT REAL EARNINGS, and the corporation doesn't pay income tax on "expected earnings", they pay tax on actual earnings. Expected future earnings is 100% speculation. It's not about the income, it's about the expectation of success, including future income.
Income and expected income are not the same thing, and you have those two conflated. Stock price is based upon a fictitious number called anticipated future earnings. You don't have a crystal ball, you don't know what the future earnings are. Some people think it will be higher than others, and that's why some people buy while others sell. It's all a prediction, none of it is actual income. The only corporate earnings are current earnings, and the only corporate assets are current assets.
If you don't understand that by now, it's your problem, I'm done trying to explain it to you.
How hard is it for you to understand that stock price being based upon perceived value is ABSOLUTELY NOT A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to corporate profits. Profits do affect perception, but it's not a direct relationship. The very definition of a direct relationship would indicate that when profits go up, stock price goes up and vice-verse. Since that clearly isn't always the case (look at many examples of profits coming in even slightly below expectations but dramatically lowering the stock price, even when the company is profitable), there is no direct relationship.
Stock price is based entirely upon perceived value of the company. Corporate income is one of the factors that affects perceived value, but it's not the only factor, and it's not always the biggest factor. Corporate assets are another factor. Market share is one factor. Predicted future income is a factor. If you EVER want to invest in the stock market, you better learn that lesson quickly or you'll lose a lot.
All of which is a big detour from your original assertion that you're being double taxed on capital gains. Gains from stock values do not come from corporate income, therefore, there is no corporate income tax being paid on those gains. You gain is coming from another investor buying your stock for more than you paid for it, not a single dollar of it comes from the corporate income. The only thing being double taxed is dividends paid by the corporation, in which case there may have been corporate income tax paid before your dividend. That's why most companies don't regularly pay dividends.
The key word is DIRECT relationship. There is no direct relationship between corporate income and stock price. Stock prices can go up or down when profits go up and vice-verse. This is contradicts the very definition of a direct relationship. Stock prices can be low when a company is making money or high when the company is losing money. Stock price is affected by the perceived value of the company, not upon corporate earnings. There ABSOLUTELY IS NOT a direct relationship, only an indirect relationship by virtue of corporate profit affecting perceived value.
And if you read the entire thread, this all grew out of the original commenter's assertion that capital gains are double taxed, corporate income tax + capital gains tax. Other than dividends, capital gains do not come from corporate income, they come from other investors buying the stock for more than you paid for it. It's a completely separate pool of money, taxed separately, and it's affected by perception of corporate value, not actual corporate performance.
And you've just proved the point that the stock price is not directly related to corporate income (and therefore corporate income tax). Share price is based upon speculation and belief, not actual income. The capital gains are not corporate income, they're another investor's money. Completely separate pool of money, and the person who loses money in the transaction gets to offset his own capital gains and if there is more loss than gain, can even offset a portion of personal income tax.
There is no double taxation except on dividends, and that is what I stated in the first place.
No, corporate profits ABSOLUTELY DO NOT directly affect stock price. If they did, corporations who were losing money would have worthless stock and those making money would always have a good stock price. Clearly that is not the case.
What affects stock price is perceived value of the company, and nothing else. Corporate profits impact that perceived value, but it's an indirect relationship, not a direct one. Stock prices are based not just upon how the company is doing now, but how people expect them to do in the future. It's all about speculation, not about how much money the company is or isn't making now.
If you're talking about buying stock in a corporation, the corporate income (or income tax) has nothing to do with it. Your gains (or losses) are on the change in price of the stock, which is about what other investors perceive it to be worth. It has no direct relationship to the corporate income (or loss) and does not come from corporate income. Dividends paid to the stockholders may fall into being double taxed, but most corporations don't may much in dividends.
You said "If you want to compare apples to apples, look at capital gains PLUS corporate income tax. It amounts to over 50%, except for companies that are in bed with the white house (GE)."
You are not double taxed on capital gains. Yes, you (may have) paid income tax on the money you earned to make the investment. However, you don't pay tax on that amount a second time, it's capital, not a gain. You only pay capital gains tax on the long-term "gain" you earned from that investment, which is to say, you deduct out your initial investment from the sale price, leaving only the "gain" that you pay "capital gains" tax on. Neither the corporate income tax, nor the capital gains tax is over 50%.
That's not the way it works. You don't pay income tax on (long term) capital gains, you pay the capital gains tax. You pay income tax on ordinary income, including short term capital gains.
You have no clue about what makes a low power design. If it were that simple, ATOM would be 2x as fast and 1/10 the power. Maintaining performance at low power requires completely different designs than high power high performance. Why do you think Intel abandoned the P4? The Core architecture is derived from the P-M, which is derived from the P3. They took the bus interface and a few other things from the P4, but the P4 execution architecture was thrown away in favor of the much more power efficient P3 derived design.
Actually, while those extra gates do take up die space, they're probably fully power gated, drawing no power and producing no heat when in "long mode". How much die space is probably small, remember a 486 only had around 1M transistors, including it's cache. Even if there are 10M transistors dedicated to maintaining compatibility in a modern CPU, that's ~1% of a modern CPU.
x64 mode already breaks backwards compatibility with quite a bit of x86 code, particularly x86 code that isn't 32-bit code. Anything written before the 386 was introduced wont run under 64-bit mode, almost nothing written before Windows 95 came out will run, and a whole bunch of stuff written before Windows XP came out won't run. There's some newer stuff that won't run, but by the time XP started shipping most software was moving to a 32-bit model, and so will likely run (some may require some minor tweaks and/or a recompile). So, most software written in the last 8-10 years should be ok, but most software written before '95 won't, and between '95 and 2003 it's hit and miss. They could probably save more power and/or get better performance by removing some more instructions and breaking compatibility even more, but it's probably not worth it to most users to have to replace so much software. Deprecating instructions today and removing them 6-10 years from now might be viable, but only if the customers see the benefits (as they are seeing with the move to 64-bit), and I don't see that happening unless ARM starts taking a lot of the server market from Intel.
It's true that this isn't a market that Intel has shown any interest in. However, this points to one of the fundamental differences between Intel and ARM. ARM already has years of mastering low power designs. For them to stay competitive means they just need to keep figuring out how to make their designs "fast enough", and work with their licensees to make them scale down to smaller process nodes. That's mostly a technical challenge, and it's one that the ARM licensees do a lot of the work on (CPU frequency and process technology)
Intel on the other hand has to figure out how to make their CPUs much lower power, and do it without compromising the performance or features that they've gotten everyone used to, and do it at a price that's competitive. That means managing the technical challenges and managing customer expectations/perceptions (look at ATOM for an example).
I leave it to the reader to figure out which has the bigger challenges.
Guess again. When you get 1000 or more people sharing that connection, throughput will suck. This is an improvement, but by no means does this replace DSL, fiber, or cable modems, there simply isn't enough radio spectrum to do that.
Great idea. Make it like a real RISC CPU, without all the x86 backwards compatibility addons. What a concept. Of course, then Intel couldn't claim "it'll run all you legacy software", and they might even have to admit it's a RISC design. And where would that leave them?
You do know that x64 has a simplified instruction set, simplified addressing modes, larger registers, a larger logical register file, and a much larger physical register file with register renaming, right?
It still supports the full x86 instruction set when running in "legacy mode", but in "long mode", it only supports a subset of instructions, and supports only 16, 32, and 64 bit registers and operands (no 8 bit support), and standardizes the instruction lengths to provide better memory alignment, and simplified instruction processing. And in either mode, all the instructions are converted to one or more macro/micro-ops before running on the "real" RISC core.
You knew all that, right? Of course you did.
Remember all those slow, complex, cumbersome instructions from the 80x86, they're still around, just moved to microcode while all the simple stuff is implemented using the same techniques pioneered by RISC designers. But since this is a server, you're probably running x64 code, which was designed to be much more RISC like in the first place.
So, I guess the real message is "Replace your non-Intel based RISC systems with Intel based RISC systems. But wait, don't answer yet! As an added bonus, Intel chips have extra hardware added so they can run all your old x86/CISC code too, that way we can pretend they're not RISC systems based on the AMD designed x64 instruction set."
Intel is making plenty of money, but they definitely see ARM as long term threat, which is part of the reason they've been focused on power consumption and performance per watt the last 5 years.
Well, upgrade to a 4-bit system. :)
Whoosh.....!
Lose your sense of humor???
A little exercise can firm up that soft perimeter for you.
Be sure to include some encrypted files with obscure names. The encrypted data can either be disinformation, or publicly available info, or random garbage, but the encryption and intriguing names will waste some of their time.